Queste Capital v. Grimm Norton 2, LLC ( 2015 )

Appellant avers "judicial efficiency would best be served by allowing [appellant] to move forward with this appeal." Respondents have submitted a reply to appellant's response. 2 In their reply, respondents note that the "procedural posture in this case is flawed." Specifically, respondents indicate that rather than filing a motion for remand, they believe they should have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the motion filed in the district court is a tolling motion, and thus the notice of appeal was premature. See NRAP 4(a)(5). Thus, as respondents note, the district court has jurisdiction to rule on the NRCP 59 motion without a remand from this court. NRAP 4(a)(6) (a premature notice of appeal does not divest the district court of jurisdiction). Thus, respondents aver that as all parties essentially want a new trial, this court should dismiss the appeal and the district court should resolve the pending tolling motion. Appellant filed a response to respondents' motion for leave to file a reply to the motion for remand in excess of the page limit. Appellant argues that the motion should be denied as it improperly raises matters not related to the original motion or appellant's response to that motion. See NRAP 27(a)(4) (a reply shall not present matters that do not relate to the response). While appellant is correct regarding the raising of matters not related to the response, in the interest of judicial efficiency, we elect to treat respondents' filing as a combined reply to the opposition and a motion for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. See NRAP 2. 2 Cause appearing, we grant respondents' "Motion for Permission to File Reply in Excess of Page Limitation." NRAP 27(d)(2). Accordingly, the clerk shall file the ten-page reply that was submitted with the motion. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 19474 en After consideration of all the parties' filings in this matter, we grant respondent's motion to dismiss this appeal. As noted, the district court may resolve the pending NRCP 59 motion without a specific remand from this court. Further, either party may file a notice of appeal from any substantively appealable order entered by the district court. See NRAP 3(a); NRAP 3A(b). It is so ORDERED. Parraguirre cc: Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 15 Jerry J. Kaufman, Settlement Judge Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP Hutchison & Steffen, LLC Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (1:) 1947A at999